KarmaOcean wrote:
You state that a participant may cause a wave function collapse.
Simply assuming that the participant causes the collapse is prejudicial and unscientific.

KarmaOcean, no one is “simply assuming” that the participant causes the collapse of the wave function. This is what the formulation of quantum mechanics directly indicates.

Kenneth Chan wrote:"The observer is empty of inherent existence because his very existence is dependent upon causes and conditions, is dependent upon his parts, and is dependent upon the mind that imputes the label upon him."

I don't believe you are making a distinction between participant and observer.
I am making that distinction, in my argument, but at this stage it's irrelevant!

So using your own language, where the participant and observer are not different, i.e where there is "the universe which is operated upon" and "the participant who operates", I would like you to tell me when a participant gains autonomy over the universe.

Do you believe it's at the participant's conception ?
Or, could it be prior to that, in the Bardo ?
Or could it be when the participant first breathes oxygen ?

Malcolm wrote: In Buddhadharma in general, there are only three unconditioned phenomena: space (as absence of obstruction), analytical cessation (nirvana), and nonanalytical cessation (simple absence of a cause).

Malcolm wrote: In Buddhadharma in general, there are only three unconditioned phenomena: space (as absence of obstruction), analytical cessation (nirvana), and nonanalytical cessation (simple absence of a cause).

Are you saying that emptiness is conditioned?

No, I am saying that in general Buddhadharma there are only three unconditioned dharmas. Emptiness is not a separate dharma, like space or the two cessations.

KarmaOcean wrote:
You state that a participant may cause a wave function collapse.
Simply assuming that the participant causes the collapse is prejudicial and unscientific.

KarmaOcean, no one is “simply assuming” that the participant causes the collapse of the wave function. This is what the formulation of quantum mechanics directly indicates.

Kenneth Chan wrote:"The observer is empty of inherent existence because his very existence is dependent upon causes and conditions, is dependent upon his parts, and is dependent upon the mind that imputes the label upon him."

I don't believe you are making a distinction between participant and observer.
I am making that distinction, in my argument, but at this stage it's irrelevant!

So using your own language, where the participant and observer are not different, i.e where there is "the universe which is operated upon" and "the participant who operates", I would like you to tell me when a participant gains autonomy over the universe.

Do you believe it's at the participant's conception ?
Or, could it be prior to that, in the Bardo ?
Or could it be when the participant first breathes oxygen ?

The problem here is that you are insisting that there is already an inherently existing universe "out there," independent of all observers, waiting to be "operated upon." In other words, your statement

KarmaOcean wrote:there is "the universe which is operated upon" and "the participant who operates"

is actually incompatible with the formulation of quantum mechanics.

Please read the section in my paper entitled "Interpreting Quantum Mechanics" and you will see why this assumption of yours is not valid. This is, in fact, the very nature of the mystery in quantum physics. To illustrate the nature of this mystery, here is a passage from that section of my paper (but please do read the entire paper before making any further unwarranted criticisms):

From Section 3. Interpreting Quantum Mechanics

In the words of Niels Bohr:

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.

We can see that, right from the beginning, Niels Bohr already had the idea that quantum mechanics merely represents our knowledge or information about the external world. “What we can say about Nature,” of course, acknowledges the role of the observer, and basically supports the fact that our science is a science of our experience, and not a science of a universe “out there” independent of us observers.

However, Bohr also emphasizes that there is no actual quantum world. This may appear odd, but the reason why he does that can be found, here, in what Werner Heisenberg writes, concerning the quantum wave function (which he calls the probability function):

… the theoretical interpretation of an experiment requires three distinct steps: (i) the translation of the initial experimental situation into a probability function; (2) the following up of this function in the course of time; (3) the statement of a new measurement to be made of the system, the result of which can then be calculated from the probability function. … The second step cannot be described in terms of the classical concepts; there is no description of what happens to the system between the initial observation and the next measurement. It is only in the third step that we change over again from the ‘possible’ to the ‘actual’.

This is essentially the problem. There appears to be no way of describing what a particle is doing in between the initial measurement and the next measurement. If we measure, say, the position of an electron, we can obtain both its position and the initial quantum wave function (i.e. the probability function) of the electron, and we can obtain the electron’s subsequent position by a further measurement. The problem is that, in between these two measurements, we only have the quantum wave function, which provides us with the probability of where we would find the electron if and only if we make a measurement. But since we are not making a measurement during this interim period, it means that the electron does not even “decide” where it is at this time. Only upon the second measurement does this, in Heisenberg’s words, “change over again from the ‘possible’ to the ‘actual’.” Heisenberg goes on to say:

… there is no way of describing what happens between two consecutive observations. It is of course tempting to say that the electron must have been somewhere between the two observations and that therefore the electron must have described some kind of path or orbit even if it may be impossible to know which path. This would be a reasonable argument in classical physics. But in quantum theory it would be a misuse of the language which … cannot be justified.

(end of quote)

This is essentially why a particle like the electron does not inherently exist on its own right, or from its own side, but is only dependently arisen upon the measurement of a conscious observer. Physicists have had great difficulty in trying to fit this scenario into the philosophical framework of a mind-matter duality, where there is already "the universe which is operated upon" and "the participant who operates."

It is also incompatible with the framework of materialism which insists that consciousness must be derived from matter. Physicists have tried unsuccessfully to force the formulation of quantum mechanics into this framework of materialism for over a century now. Even with all sorts of hypothetical ad hoc additions (including bizarre ones like "infinite alternate universes") to the basic formulation, it just does not fit.

That is why the solution to the mystery of quantum mechanics is to be found in Madhyamika philosophy. Madhyamika philosophy allows us to directly interpret the formulation of quantum mechanics, in a way that is free of conceptual problems, and free of the need for any further ad hoc additions or modifications to the basic formulation.

I should add, here, that Madhyamika philosophy does not require quantum mechanics for its justification. Madhyamika philosophy is already established on the basis of extremely rigorous philosophical and logical analyses. The reverse, however, is more appropriate. It is the formulation of quantum mechanics that requires Madhyamika philosophy in order for it to make sense!

Kenneth Chan wrote:This is essentially why a particle like the electron does not inherently exist on its own right, or from its own side, but is only dependently arisen upon the measurement of a conscious observer.

Here you say, as far as I'm concerned, that the wave function collapses upon observation by consciousness.

There's another possibility: That a continual collapse of the wave function, as an ongoing sequence of dependent events, appears as a physical manifestation (the universe); and it's this collapse which gives rise to consciousness.

This dependently arisen "consciousness" is, therefore, actually ignorance. The enlightened statehood, in which all Dharmas originate as empty appearances, is not actually "consciousness". "Cosmic consciousness" is wrong view. The enlightened statehood is actually compassion. The basis of the enlightened state of compassion is Love. The mechanism of Love is that it gives, supplies, a universal experience of ignorance (consciousness) to aspects of the enlightened statehood in which desire to experience an illusion of self-hood is continually recurring.

Therefore consciousness, observation, and science is necessarily subordinate asunder the true nature of the universe.

As far as I know this is the true Buddha Dharma and your continual insistence that the universe is an aspect of consciousness is (i) completely contrary to this Dharma and (ii) directly suggests that countless wonderful Dharmas gifted to us by an enlightened statehood are actually the (somehow) manufactured illusions of ignorance.

KarmaOcean wrote:
There's another possibility: That a continual collapse of the wave function, as an ongoing sequence of dependent events, appears as a physical manifestation (the universe); and it's this collapse which gives rise to consciousness.

There is no such thing as "a continual collapse of the wave function" as this would make the Schrodinger Equation invalid and contradict the experimental findings of quantum physics. So your wild speculations are simply wrong.

KarmaOcean wrote:
... your continual insistence that the universe is an aspect of consciousness ...

I have never stated that "the universe is an aspect of consciousness." It is pointless responding to posts of this nature, where you simply invent what other people say.

KarmaOcean, if you want to wildly speculate over things that have nothing to do with the actual quantum physics or Madhyamika philosophy, may I suggest that you start your own thread somewhere else.

Just want to point out that Professor Kip S. Thorne, the physicist who approved my original relativity paper for publication, has just won the Nobel Prize for Physics! So, I can now say that my paper “Time and Space”—which explains for the first time why the speed of light is constant—was approved by a Nobel Laureate.

This paper on relativity is important because it provides further scientific evidence that the Madhyamaka view of reality is correct. Essentially it demonstrates that our science is a science of what we experience, and not a science of a universe “out there” independent of us as conscious observers.

This means that there is concrete scientific evidence that both time and space are empty of inherent existence, since they only arise in dependence upon the mind that apprehends them. Thus, both relativity and quantum mechanics—which together form the foundation of all modern physics—provide clear scientific evidence that Madhyamika Philosophy is correct.

My original paper “Time and Space” was published in the ISPE anthology entitled “Thinking on the Edge,” and the physics consultant for the book was Professor Kip S. Thorne, who approved it for publication. This paper may now be found here: